Do Christians and muslims worship the same God?

Bedrockgames said:

What I find interesting about early Judaism is there does seem to at least be this sense that other gods exist (you just are not supposed to worship them) but then it increasingly becomes more monotheistic than henotheistic.

Click to expand...

It is really, really murky - very likely having been deliberately obscured by successive rounds of purges, etc, etc.

There is definitely a period where the Jews are 'there are other gods, but El/Yah/whatever wants us to hold Him Preeminent', then X happens and suddenly they are 'There are no other gods and never have been'.

Some scholars put X at around the time of the Exodus, some push it back onto Abraham. The most likely explanation is that there is a schism within the temple, with one faction finally getting tired of losing, falling on the other with swords, then as winners usually do, making up whatever they needed to justify and legitimize their victory. There's also the idea that it's a more gradual take-over of the religion by internal factions that develop - finally they just outlive everyone else, burn the scrolls that contradict them, and suddenly 'We're monotheists! And always have been!'.

Some other scholars point to 'culture building', as the elders cobble together laws and customs in order to differentiate their people from all the other tribes and set them apart as something special. They don't have to make sense, they just have to be different, so different and memorable that people go 'Oh, they do X? They must be the Y people!' (You see the most blatant example of this in Leviticus).

Umbran said:

Not really sell the concept to surrounding polytheists, in that the religion was drawn up on cultural and racial lines, and seeking converts not such a big thing. But sell them, in the sense of, "think of the early Jews as non-threatening". New minority religions have it hard enough without doing things that actively cheese off the majority. Just ask the Mormons.

And not like this was willfully designed as such - I don't expect the authors to have had quite so much understanding as to plan it this way. I think of it more as a sociological form of Darwinian selection - those burgeoning factions that didn't have such characteristics were probably more likely to fail.

Click to expand...

I understand, but again, my understanding is this isn't the mainstream view among historians or biblical scholars. It sounds like things we can't possibly know about their thought process are being added in here. All we really have is the text and archeological records to go on. By those, the evidence seems to suggest they believed other gods existed early in their history but that over time this evolved into a belief in a single God. I could certainly be wrong here, I am just restating what I remember encountering on when this stuff came up in relevant history courses.

Abraham was a Chaldean (Babylonian) Astronomer, who was raised in a Polytheistic culture which venerated gods including El Elyon, Ashera and Baal. Josephus claims that Abrahams study of the stars eventually lead him to recognise the supremacy of El Elyon. Abraham had an Epiphany whereby El called him to leave Ur, however it was in his later meeting with King Melchezedek that he first embraced true Monotheisim as an option.

The Old Testament does allow for the existence of other gods, at the time polytheism was everywhere and the Hebrews regularly saw mountains, trees and temples which they knew to be sacred sites dedicated to these gods - but the Chosen people are commanded to have no other god and the Old Testament Prophets were largely about ensuring the Hebrews didn't fall back to paganism

Josephus said:

And he (Abraham) inferred these things from the changes in land and sea that are dependant upon the sun and the moon and all the happenings in heaven. For he said that, if they had the power they would have provided for their own orderliness. But, since they lack this, it is evident that as many things as they contribute to our increased usefulness they perform not by their own authority but in accordance with the power of their commander on whom alone it is proper to confer honor and gratitude

Click to expand...

Dannyalcatraz said:

It might be accurate to think of monotheism as a..."revealed truth"...to those who converted to Judaism in the early days. As in, they talked about their faith in a certain way in public, but the true nature of the Jewish theology on divinity would be only be taught to those who converted.

Click to expand...

Also very likely. Possibly only taught to priests. 'Mystery Cults' are a big deal in just about any time period.

Veering off into fiction, one of my favorite scenes in Jericho Moon is where Joshua becomes the high priest of Yahweh, only to discover that the real function of the priesthood is to protect their people from Yahweh, keeping them within certain strictures so Yahweh doesn't destroy them in a snit.

Bedrockgames said:

It sounds like things we can't possibly know about their thought process are being added in here.

Click to expand...

Well, all other explanations are *also* things we can't possibly know about heir thought processes. All we have now are some very old resulting documents and fragmentary (and occasionally inconsistent) history - we do not have explication of their thought processes. Any suggestion about how and why they got from A to B is merely our putting together a plausible story.

Umbran said:

Well, all other explanations are *also* things we can't possibly know about heir thought processes. All we have now are some very old resulting documents and fragmentary (and occasionally inconsistent) history - we do not have explication of their thought processes. Any suggestion about how and why they got from A to B is merely our putting together a plausible story.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind what we are discussing is not a view that "this is absolutely how it went down" but more along the lines of "this is the most accepted scenario because it seems more likely given the textual evidence". I am not objecting to the conclusion that they didn't believe in these other gods, just saying your explanation seems to go a lot further than did they believe or didn't they.

There is a certain amount of speculation involved in both conclusions but examining the text, two possibilities present themselves when you see references to other gods: they believed those gods existed or they didn't believe they existed. Stating one or the other as a more likely conclusion, isn't exactly speculative to the degree of adding in the "Why".

The_Silversword said:

"No gods before Me" could be interpreted to mean you can worship other gods as long as you acknowledge that God is Top Dog.

Click to expand...

That is monolatry or henotheism and early Judaism could have been practicing one of those instead of monotheism.

There is evidence of other minor Hebrew divinity for early Hebrews. The central Hebrew divinity might have had a wife too. A wife with an interest for trees... *wink wink* The Adam and Eve myth could just be an attempt at getting rid of their divinity status while contenting those who worship the minor divinities. Instead of having the central deity married to Eve, it is Adam, who is made in the deity's image, that marries Eve.

Umbran said:

It could be (at least, in its English translation), but it isn't.

Specifically, you have to be aware of the context of the original - a person could be stoned for idolatry on the testimony of only two people. Trying to ride the line of, "I worship this other guy, but not as much," was asking to be pelted with rocks until you were dead. The people in general still had the story of the Flood in mind, remembering that if such practice became too common, God would obliterate the entire nation. The God of the Covenant was pretty jealous, and a little passive-aggressive.

And note that the Ten Commandments are basically a *summary* of the most important laws - they are, in effect, the bullet points version. The Torah contains 613 other commandments that build out what folks need to do in a practical sense.

Of course, in the original all these commandments only apply to the Israelites, because they were the chosen. The rest of the world was held to a different standard - any non-Jew who followed the Seven Laws of Noah was considered a "righteous gentile" and god would look kindly on them in the world to come. This is a basis for how Judaism doesn't generally go out beating people over the head to accept the religion - there's an explicit place for those who don't follow as the Jews do.

Click to expand...

Ok, but consider this, there other deities named in the Holy Bible, Lucifer (contrary to popular belief its not the name of the Devil but rather a Roman (maybe it was Greek, im always getting those mixxed up) god of knowledge and enlightment) and Beelzebub, a Babylonian deity, I believe, immediately come to mind, although there are probably more I just dont feel like scouring the Bible for them at this time. So it seems silly to me that the writers of the bible didnt believe in any other gods. Also, werent the Pharaoh's holy men or whatever able to call upon their gods and perform minor magics to show Moses that they could do stuff to? And another thing, after Adam & Eve eat the forbidden fruit God says something along the lines of they are like US, knowing good and evil, who would else would He be refering to if He's the only God? And theres also the fact that Jews have had a long history of being subjugated by other people and were expected to worship their gods, Its quite possible that they did so believing that they were ok cause they didnt put them before their God in their hearts.

Now sure some might say that its all the Devil or whatever, but the concept we have of the Devil now didn't exist back in old testament times.

So yeah, I believe that writers of the Bible recognized the existence of other deities aside from their own.

The_Silversword said:

Ok, but consider this, there other deities named in the Holy Bible, Lucifer (contrary to popular belief its not the name of the Devil but rather a Roman (maybe it was Greek, im always getting those mixxed up) god of knowledge and enlightment) <SNIP>

Click to expand...

Um, no. You have crossed two lines of Latin and come up naught. The NAME Lucifer was that of an angel, "the morning star or the "bringer of light" an archangel that was chief among the heavenly host. The WORD was Latin for "Light bringer" and was often used in conjunction with the worship of Venus "the morning star". So, while Lucifer was used in conjunction with deity by the Romans (and the Greeks) it was not a name, the name Lucifer used in the bible is strictly used the name of a fallen angel who would become the devil. As a side note if you read the Latin Vulgate, Jesus is given the title "luciferi" "the morning sun (son)" So if you listen to a Catholic mass in high Latin, it can get very confusing when the words luciferi, lucifer and lucirefien are thrown around during the Easter resurrection sermon.

The_Silversword said:

<SNIP> Beelzebub, a Babylonian deity, I believe, immediately come to mind, although there are probably more I just dont feel like scouring the Bible for them at this time. So it seems silly to me that the writers of the bible didnt believe in any other gods. Also, werent the Pharaoh's holy men or whatever able to call upon their gods and perform minor magics to show Moses that they could do stuff to? And another thing, after Adam & Eve eat the forbidden fruit God says something along the lines of they are like US, knowing good and evil, who would else would He be refering to if He's the only God? And theres also the fact that Jews have had a long history of being subjugated by other people and were expected to worship their gods, Its quite possible that they did so believing that they were ok cause they didn't put them before their God in their hearts.
Now sure some might say that its all the Devil or whatever, but the concept we have of the Devil now didn't exist back in old testament times. So yeah, I believe that writers of the Bible recognized the existence of other deities aside from their own.

Click to expand...

Actually the Old Testament is filled with names of other gods, but are always referred to as false (eventually), usually after said worshipers have their collective butts kicked by one of god's prophets, messengers, King David, etc. Also, there are plenty of instances where it is shown that Jews may have been subjugated, but clearly didn't fall in line much to their eventually glory (Daniel; Ruth; Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego for example.) So as to recognizing other deities, well, yes, but more in a "these heathen morons that are ignorant of the truth are about to get schooled", kind of way.

BTW, I personally am an atheist(non-militant (ie the rare type)) but was a minister for quite a while. The problem most folks have with interpreting the bible, the quaran and the talmud/torah, are hearing the stories and then forgetting key parts that are very minor but intrinsically important. Do you know how many people think King Solomon actually sliced a baby in half? (he threatened to and then gave the baby to the mother who didn't think it was a good idea. (in one piece.))

Thunderfoot said:

Um, no. You have crossed two lines of Latin and come up naught. The NAME Lucifer was that of an angel, "the morning star or the "bringer of light" an archangel that was chief among the heavenly host. The WORD was Latin for "Light bringer" and was often used in conjunction with the worship of Venus "the morning star". So, while Lucifer was used in conjunction with deity by the Romans (and the Greeks) it was not a name, the name Lucifer used in the bible is strictly used the name of a fallen angel who would become the devil. As a side note if you read the Latin Vulgate, Jesus is given the title "luciferi" "the morning sun (son)" So if you listen to a Catholic mass in high Latin, it can get very confusing when the words luciferi, lucifer and lucirefien are thrown around during the Easter resurrection sermon.


Actually the Old Testament is filled with names of other gods, but are always referred to as false (eventually), usually after said worshipers have their collective butts kicked by one of god's prophets, messengers, King David, etc. Also, there are plenty of instances where it is shown that Jews may have been subjugated, but clearly didn't fall in line much to their eventually glory (Daniel; Ruth; Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego for example.) So as to recognizing other deities, well, yes, but more in a "these heathen morons that are ignorant of the truth are about to get schooled", kind of way.

BTW, I personally am an atheist(non-militant (ie the rare type)) but was a minister for quite a while. The problem most folks have with interpreting the bible, the quaran and the talmud/torah, are hearing the stories and then forgetting key parts that are very minor but intrinsically important. Do you know how many people think King Solomon actually sliced a baby in half? (he threatened to and then gave the baby to the mother who didn't think it was a good idea. (in one piece.))

Click to expand...

It seems I remember reading somewhere that Lucifer was a son of Venus and, well somebody else, I dont remember, but it appears you are right, that it was a title given to the Greek god Phosphorus, and apparently to the moon as well. But regardless, no where in the Bible is Lucifer named as an angel.